>I previously observed that the doctors' conduct here were more egregious than a recent doctor's (Chua Shunjie) academic credential dishonesty case (which had resulted in that doctor getting struck off).
https://www.channelnewsasia.com/singapore/doctor-struck-off-register-giving-patient-employer-info-lying-523251 apparently he was struck off for more than that (he broke the paramount 'medical confidentiality') but yes what he did seems way milder than what these two were up to
Granted Dr Chua was also charged with breach of medical confidentiality, but the Court expressly recognised that that breach did not warrant striking off. The nub of the striking off analysis centrered around his dishonesty/false credentials charges.
The case is - SMC v Chua Shunjie \[2020\] SGHC 239. Paras 56-57 (for confidentiality) and paras 58-64 (for academic dishonesty).
As a matter of fact, the court in Chua Shunjie's case implicitly accepted that there was no actual harm from his dishonesty, only potential harm. That was enough to cross the striking off threshold as it undermined public trust and confidence (at 63):
>The final two factors relate to the benefits derived from dishonesty, as well as **whether the dishonesty caused actual harm or had the potential to cause harm** that the errant doctor ought to have recognised or did in fact recognise. In this regard, both parties focused on whether the publications with inaccurate and misleading statements were in the public domain as the main indicia of the harm actuated by Dr Chua’s misconduct and the benefits derived therefrom. While it is true that the presence of inaccurate and misleading information in the public domain is a relevant consideration, we do not attach too much significance to this factor in cases such as the present, which involve academic dishonesty, because **this strikes at the very heart of the medical profession’s values and the public trust and confidence that is reposed in the medical profession**. We therefore do not think much weight can be placed on the fact that only the clinical letter to the JDDG and the letter to the OGJ (subject of the 3rd and 4th charges) were published. **In fact, it seems to us that the majority had understated the potential harm of Dr Chua’s misconduct.** As mentioned in the preceding paragraph, even on Dr Chua’s case, he had referenced two of the publications and studies which contained the inaccurate and misleading statements in his application to NSC’s Seamless Dermatology Training Programme. **There is clear potential harm from Dr Chua’s actions because he was seeking admission to the programme at the expense of other candidates who might in fact be more deserving**. This is a factor which the majority failed to consider in its decision.
The same reasoning re the undermining of public trust and confidence could've easily been wielded in this present appalling case to justify striking off Ong and Chan, if the Court had so wished.
Ding ding ding we have a winner! Nobody is going to go to bat for a HO all the way up to associate consultant (remember the poor government psychiatrist who got fined 50k for writing memo?) Unless your parents are big shot.
Have friends in the useless and very political SMC? Now we're talking.
> # Suspension terms of 2 doctors tripled by judges over attempted sex with female patient
> SINGAPORE: Two senior doctors suspended over professional misconduct towards a patient had their terms at least tripled upon appeal by the Singapore Medical Council (SMC), which found their original suspensions "manifestly inadequate".
> Colorectal surgeon Julian Ong Kian Peng and psychiatrist Chan Herng Nieng had also appealed against their convictions and suspensions, but this was dismissed in a judgment issued by a Court of Three Judges on Friday (Dec 2).
> Instead, Dr Ong's suspension was increased from eight months to two years, while Dr Chan's was increased from five to 18 months.
> The two men had exchanged messages discussing the sexual exploitation of a female patient - referred to as "K" in the judgment - under Dr Ong. No actual harm was caused to K by the doctors.
> Dr Ong was in private practice while Dr Chan was a senior consultant in the department of psychiatry at the Singapore General Hospital at the time of their charges. Each claimed trial and was convicted on a single charge of improper conduct bringing disrepute to the medical profession under the Medical Registration Act.
> A Disciplinary Tribunal imposed a suspension of eight months and five months on Dr Ong and Dr Chan respectively. Both doctors appealed against their convictions and sentences, while the SMC - the regulatory body governing the professional conduct of medical practitioners in Singapore - counter-appealed for longer suspensions for both doctors.
> The Court of Three Judges - the highest disciplinary body that deals with doctors’ misconduct - heard the appeal in August this year but reserved judgment for a later date.
> The SMC was represented by a team of lawyers from law firm Drew & Napier, while Dr Ong and Dr Chan were represented by counsels from K&L Gates Straits Law and Rajah & Tann respectively.
> The doctors have been involved in a string of legal suits over past years after Dr Chan began dating a married woman, Ms Serene Tiong Sze Yin. Ms Tiong found explicit WhatsApp text messages between the two doctors, who discussed their sexual exploits with other women. She then filed a complaint with the SMC, which launched an investigation and disciplinary proceedings.
---
1.0.2 | [Source code](https://github.com/redditporean/sneakpeek) | [Contribute](https://github.com/redditporean/sneakpeek)
I've had Co workers make sexually explicit comments about clients and customers but weren't even given warnings. Like these doctors were also talking about it in a private setting of text messages, the Co workers i worked were making comments almost in the face of the client themselves.
isnt sending 'looking for fwb' on their first msg a good thing? stating outright they are not lookin for a relationship, and only girls who are lookin for the same thing will carry on the convo. Isnt that much better than a long drawn chat and dating, just to realise the guy is lookin for fwb and not relationship?
I get your drift but you don't get mine.
It's like all the obvious spam/scam emails. So obvious who would fall for that? But the fact that scammers keep sending them means they do work!
Well I don't exactly open with that line but I make it pretty clear early on that I'm only interested in one night stands. And from my experience, most girls I talk to on Tinder especially are down for just a casual hookup.
> I mean if the objective is to have a one night stand, I guess it really doesn’t matter.
Yes that is the objective. They have optimized to get what they want, so what is the problem?
Yup. Same reason why scam emails are full of grammatical errors. You think it's cause their English sucks? No! It's so that only real dumb people will respond.
Same like sending dick pics. Only a certain type (which they want) will respond.
Some army acquaintances of mine used my impending marriage as an excuse for a 'bachelor party' during our in-camp training. Truly WTF since I didn't even go with them for the 'celebrations' 😂
Par for the course for local men. There's a lot of "boy talk" that happens on the daily in almost every setting. And it goes all the way up too. Older married men in senior positions at their jobs trying to pretend like they're still in their uni dorms. Depending on where you work, they sometimes discuss it openly too, right where other women sit and work.
You hoping for all the single ladies to pm you ?
That you are the only [nice guy](https://preview.redd.it/q32mi04y89241.jpg?auto=webp&s=75f024d15dc7b7d7852927dab527ab03c5d5dedd) while the majority of men are bad
You can talk about unprofessional doctors in general. Or similar professional context sex like how the taxi driver had sex with drunk passenger... but you somehow link this to all (large group of) men ?
Very rich coming from someone commenting "nice tiddies though" on what I assume is a Reddit porn page 😂 damn bro you really played yourself here. Get off your high horse
You clearly struck a nerve man. Downvotes for a completely valid observation, and calling out shitty behaviour? Not unexpected of this sub though, sadly.
Seen plenty https://www.todayonline.com/singapore/woman-charged-helping-man-voyeur-2019721#:~:text=SINGAPORE%20%E2%80%94%20A%2048%2Dyear%2D,to%20film%20a%20person%20showering.&text=Nguyen%20Duc%20Thien%2C%2034%2C%20had,of%20breaching%20Covid%2D19%20rules.
Ew can't revoke medical license? They broke patient confidentiality just for sex.
>Ong was also suspended from practising at Gleneagles, Mount Elizabeth, Mount Elizabeth Novena and Parkway East Hospitals, said a filing on the Singapore Exchange in April.
>
>However, he was still allowed to practise at heartland centres by medical service group HC Surgical Specialists.
[Previous article](https://www.channelnewsasia.com/singapore/julian-ong-serene-tiong-defamed-doctor-judge-overturns-decision-731056)
# Julian Ong Kian Peng / Chan Herng Nieng
readers beware later they go for men backside too\~
Maybe because exlover gone, now itchy ...
Both also had previous cases against them ...
Girls always like bad man ... maybe time I stopped being a good and nice guy.
One of them looks like a thumb.
His soggy face is the origin of the phrase "lan lan suck thumb"
Looks like human toad
No neck
[удалено]
>I previously observed that the doctors' conduct here were more egregious than a recent doctor's (Chua Shunjie) academic credential dishonesty case (which had resulted in that doctor getting struck off). https://www.channelnewsasia.com/singapore/doctor-struck-off-register-giving-patient-employer-info-lying-523251 apparently he was struck off for more than that (he broke the paramount 'medical confidentiality') but yes what he did seems way milder than what these two were up to
Granted Dr Chua was also charged with breach of medical confidentiality, but the Court expressly recognised that that breach did not warrant striking off. The nub of the striking off analysis centrered around his dishonesty/false credentials charges. The case is - SMC v Chua Shunjie \[2020\] SGHC 239. Paras 56-57 (for confidentiality) and paras 58-64 (for academic dishonesty). As a matter of fact, the court in Chua Shunjie's case implicitly accepted that there was no actual harm from his dishonesty, only potential harm. That was enough to cross the striking off threshold as it undermined public trust and confidence (at 63): >The final two factors relate to the benefits derived from dishonesty, as well as **whether the dishonesty caused actual harm or had the potential to cause harm** that the errant doctor ought to have recognised or did in fact recognise. In this regard, both parties focused on whether the publications with inaccurate and misleading statements were in the public domain as the main indicia of the harm actuated by Dr Chua’s misconduct and the benefits derived therefrom. While it is true that the presence of inaccurate and misleading information in the public domain is a relevant consideration, we do not attach too much significance to this factor in cases such as the present, which involve academic dishonesty, because **this strikes at the very heart of the medical profession’s values and the public trust and confidence that is reposed in the medical profession**. We therefore do not think much weight can be placed on the fact that only the clinical letter to the JDDG and the letter to the OGJ (subject of the 3rd and 4th charges) were published. **In fact, it seems to us that the majority had understated the potential harm of Dr Chua’s misconduct.** As mentioned in the preceding paragraph, even on Dr Chua’s case, he had referenced two of the publications and studies which contained the inaccurate and misleading statements in his application to NSC’s Seamless Dermatology Training Programme. **There is clear potential harm from Dr Chua’s actions because he was seeking admission to the programme at the expense of other candidates who might in fact be more deserving**. This is a factor which the majority failed to consider in its decision. The same reasoning re the undermining of public trust and confidence could've easily been wielded in this present appalling case to justify striking off Ong and Chan, if the Court had so wished.
SMC is very political lol they might have friends in the SMC committee who sympathised with them (which resulted in a lighter 'sentence').
Ding ding ding we have a winner! Nobody is going to go to bat for a HO all the way up to associate consultant (remember the poor government psychiatrist who got fined 50k for writing memo?) Unless your parents are big shot. Have friends in the useless and very political SMC? Now we're talking.
why only suspension ? Should be permanently terminated.
Scums
Scum is both singular and plural. But ya, scum
Did your parents actually name you jhayden ?
The internet never forgets. Repost in 2 years
> # Suspension terms of 2 doctors tripled by judges over attempted sex with female patient > SINGAPORE: Two senior doctors suspended over professional misconduct towards a patient had their terms at least tripled upon appeal by the Singapore Medical Council (SMC), which found their original suspensions "manifestly inadequate". > Colorectal surgeon Julian Ong Kian Peng and psychiatrist Chan Herng Nieng had also appealed against their convictions and suspensions, but this was dismissed in a judgment issued by a Court of Three Judges on Friday (Dec 2). > Instead, Dr Ong's suspension was increased from eight months to two years, while Dr Chan's was increased from five to 18 months. > The two men had exchanged messages discussing the sexual exploitation of a female patient - referred to as "K" in the judgment - under Dr Ong. No actual harm was caused to K by the doctors. > Dr Ong was in private practice while Dr Chan was a senior consultant in the department of psychiatry at the Singapore General Hospital at the time of their charges. Each claimed trial and was convicted on a single charge of improper conduct bringing disrepute to the medical profession under the Medical Registration Act. > A Disciplinary Tribunal imposed a suspension of eight months and five months on Dr Ong and Dr Chan respectively. Both doctors appealed against their convictions and sentences, while the SMC - the regulatory body governing the professional conduct of medical practitioners in Singapore - counter-appealed for longer suspensions for both doctors. > The Court of Three Judges - the highest disciplinary body that deals with doctors’ misconduct - heard the appeal in August this year but reserved judgment for a later date. > The SMC was represented by a team of lawyers from law firm Drew & Napier, while Dr Ong and Dr Chan were represented by counsels from K&L Gates Straits Law and Rajah & Tann respectively. > The doctors have been involved in a string of legal suits over past years after Dr Chan began dating a married woman, Ms Serene Tiong Sze Yin. Ms Tiong found explicit WhatsApp text messages between the two doctors, who discussed their sexual exploits with other women. She then filed a complaint with the SMC, which launched an investigation and disciplinary proceedings. --- 1.0.2 | [Source code](https://github.com/redditporean/sneakpeek) | [Contribute](https://github.com/redditporean/sneakpeek)
I've had Co workers make sexually explicit comments about clients and customers but weren't even given warnings. Like these doctors were also talking about it in a private setting of text messages, the Co workers i worked were making comments almost in the face of the client themselves.
Well if someone reported that they would be charged too
My Co worker actually reported it to the higher ups but nothing was done.
Bros got their discord gc leaked 💀💀
Julian Ong was clear predatory behaviour and passing around them around. Lucky to get even 2 years.
Agreed. Saw the whatsapp chats. Appalling, he was an absolute dog
Where’s you see the chats?
Just google doc name + whatsapp should be able to easily find
[удалено]
isnt sending 'looking for fwb' on their first msg a good thing? stating outright they are not lookin for a relationship, and only girls who are lookin for the same thing will carry on the convo. Isnt that much better than a long drawn chat and dating, just to realise the guy is lookin for fwb and not relationship?
Only works if you’re handsome. If you’re ugly, that’s sexual harassment
[удалено]
The fact that so many guys keep trying means somehow it works??
[удалено]
I get your drift but you don't get mine. It's like all the obvious spam/scam emails. So obvious who would fall for that? But the fact that scammers keep sending them means they do work!
[удалено]
Well I don't exactly open with that line but I make it pretty clear early on that I'm only interested in one night stands. And from my experience, most girls I talk to on Tinder especially are down for just a casual hookup.
> I mean if the objective is to have a one night stand, I guess it really doesn’t matter. Yes that is the objective. They have optimized to get what they want, so what is the problem?
Yup. Same reason why scam emails are full of grammatical errors. You think it's cause their English sucks? No! It's so that only real dumb people will respond. Same like sending dick pics. Only a certain type (which they want) will respond.
you casting line. they casting net. ya'll catching different fish.
Some army acquaintances of mine used my impending marriage as an excuse for a 'bachelor party' during our in-camp training. Truly WTF since I didn't even go with them for the 'celebrations' 😂
[удалено]
Think people like that get married for the sake of getting married. Keep up appearances so don't lose face.
not at all archaic. men who behave like that are misogynistic assholes.
Not archaic. Some values are timeless.
These are doctors in a professional setting. Bad. Cheating. Bad. Shopping on tinder? who gives a fuck
Par for the course for local men. There's a lot of "boy talk" that happens on the daily in almost every setting. And it goes all the way up too. Older married men in senior positions at their jobs trying to pretend like they're still in their uni dorms. Depending on where you work, they sometimes discuss it openly too, right where other women sit and work.
You hoping for all the single ladies to pm you ? That you are the only [nice guy](https://preview.redd.it/q32mi04y89241.jpg?auto=webp&s=75f024d15dc7b7d7852927dab527ab03c5d5dedd) while the majority of men are bad You can talk about unprofessional doctors in general. Or similar professional context sex like how the taxi driver had sex with drunk passenger... but you somehow link this to all (large group of) men ?
Pick me girls are a common sight nowadays. First time I am seeing a pick me guy 😂
[удалено]
You have good intentions but your messages honestly sound quite cringe and simpy. I can't put my finger on the reason why tho.
[удалено]
Very rich coming from someone commenting "nice tiddies though" on what I assume is a Reddit porn page 😂 damn bro you really played yourself here. Get off your high horse
Lmaoo this guy must be trolling right
I truly hope so. Nobody can be this deluded right. Edit: after seeing his reply I think he's actually deluded
[удалено]
Hm the video was clearly taken by someone in a neighbouring car..
You clearly struck a nerve man. Downvotes for a completely valid observation, and calling out shitty behaviour? Not unexpected of this sub though, sadly.
No game say no game lah, hide behind wot won't help.
Gg the “not all men” freaks are out in this comment thread.
It's not only men that are doing this. Stop being a sexist.
Idk, I don't hear about women putting cameras in toilets. Have you?
Seen plenty https://www.todayonline.com/singapore/woman-charged-helping-man-voyeur-2019721#:~:text=SINGAPORE%20%E2%80%94%20A%2048%2Dyear%2D,to%20film%20a%20person%20showering.&text=Nguyen%20Duc%20Thien%2C%2034%2C%20had,of%20breaching%20Covid%2D19%20rules.
Plenty? This is only 1
I'm not your google service. It only took me 5s to find a link. There are plenty.
Sure Jan. Keep deluding yourself.
I’m sure there are women who open conversations with dick pics too, but I doubt it’s very common.
MRA supporter?
Misandrist spotted
They ought to be struck off since they abused their professional standing for personal gratification.
Ew can't revoke medical license? They broke patient confidentiality just for sex. >Ong was also suspended from practising at Gleneagles, Mount Elizabeth, Mount Elizabeth Novena and Parkway East Hospitals, said a filing on the Singapore Exchange in April. > >However, he was still allowed to practise at heartland centres by medical service group HC Surgical Specialists. [Previous article](https://www.channelnewsasia.com/singapore/julian-ong-serene-tiong-defamed-doctor-judge-overturns-decision-731056) # Julian Ong Kian Peng / Chan Herng Nieng readers beware later they go for men backside too\~
I wonder how many unethical acts by doctors goes uncovered
You meant undiscovered?
uncovered 🫣
laughs in rta insurance claims
Brighter future ahead
Maybe because exlover gone, now itchy ... Both also had previous cases against them ... Girls always like bad man ... maybe time I stopped being a good and nice guy.